Sometimes, if reality is stranger than fiction, its only because there ain't no damned difference! Over the course of doing personal research, I discovered that academics were increasingly receiving pies-in-the-face from their own research results beginning with the extremes in the cognitive and physical sciences, and building up into an avalanche. What became obvious is they were getting results that indicate 42 is as good an explanation for the laws of physics anyone is ever going to get. However, upon closer examination of the stories it became evident that the researchers were all performing flawless slapstick, with the jokes going right over their heads no matter how patently obvious they were.

For example, physicists struggled for years to simulate a Mott transition from quantum mechanical to classical, only to be confused when the results contradicted all of their theories and calculations. The results indicated that the Big Bang was neither too hot nor too cold, but just right for the physicists to take their measurements. Instead of seeing the humor in the situation, the physicists shrugged their shoulders and said it might require years or decades to figure out how a Goldilocks universe works. Donald Hoffman is a game theorist who spent ten years studying all the neurological evidence and running one computer simulation after another, only to conclude that if the human mind and brain had resembled anything like reality, we would already be extinct as a species. Mr Hoffman said he had no clue what it could mean, but it must be related to quantum mechanics. These are two of the more striking research results, but the list goes on and on including mathematicians establishing in a number of ways that classical logic and physics appear to be tautological and self-contradictory.

The physicists who measured the Goldilocks universe were not stupid, and its extremely difficult for me to believe for one second that it would normally be impossible for them to get the punch line to a joke like that. The first quantifiable theory of humor has established that it involves anything low in entropy suggesting that, for some reason, the physicists were not perceiving the low entropy of what they were observing. That others can perceive the humor from a distance and that the slapstick is so flawless suggests that the identity of what is reality and fiction is becoming conflated, and the researcher's own interest in looking for causal explanations is determining what they perceive. This could explain the Quantum Observer Effect and why Relativity contains the glaring Simultaneity Paradox.

Any feedback is welcome, but this involves fuzzy logic and quantum mechanics and I'm not looking for any sort of metaphysical explanation, but a systems logics view that reflects Indeterminacy as being the default and the ground state, expressing yin-yang push-pull dynamics and the Two Faces Janus.

wuliheron wrote:Sometimes, if reality is stranger than fiction, its only because there ain't no damned difference! Over the course of doing personal research, I discovered that academics were increasingly receiving pies-in-the-face from their own research results beginning with the extremes in the cognitive and physical sciences, and building up into an avalanche. What became obvious is they were getting results that indicate 42 is as good an explanation for the laws of physics anyone is ever going to get. However, upon closer examination of the stories it became evident that the researchers were all performing flawless slapstick, with the jokes going right over their heads no matter how patently obvious they were.

For example, physicists struggled for years to simulate a Mott transition from quantum mechanical to classical, only to be confused when the results contradicted all of their theories and calculations. The results indicated that the Big Bang was neither too hot nor too cold, but just right for the physicists to take their measurements. Instead of seeing the humor in the situation, the physicists shrugged their shoulders and said it might require years or decades to figure out how a Goldilocks universe works. Donald Hoffman is a game theorist who spent ten years studying all the neurological evidence and running one computer simulation after another, only to conclude that if the human mind and brain had resembled anything like reality, we would already be extinct as a species. Mr Hoffman said he had no clue what it could mean, but it must be related to quantum mechanics. These are two of the more striking research results, but the list goes on and on including mathematicians establishing in a number of ways that classical logic and physics appear to be tautological and self-contradictory.

The physicists who measured the Goldilocks universe were not stupid, and its extremely difficult for me to believe for one second that it would normally be impossible for them to get the punch line to a joke like that. The first quantifiable theory of humor has established that it involves anything low in entropy suggesting that, for some reason, the physicists were not perceiving the low entropy of what they were observing. That others can perceive the humor from a distance and that the slapstick is so flawless suggests that the identity of what is reality and fiction is becoming conflated, and the researcher's own interest in looking for causal explanations is determining what they perceive. This could explain the Quantum Observer Effect and why Relativity contains the glaring Simultaneity Paradox.

Any feedback is welcome, but this involves fuzzy logic and quantum mechanics and I'm not looking for any sort of metaphysical explanation, but a systems logics view that reflects Indeterminacy as being the default and the ground state, expressing yin-yang push-pull dynamics and the Two Faces Janus.

Sorry to disillusion. you , but Janus and Ying Yang are metaphysical conceptions ; metaphorical functions. Indeterminancy between default and ground -state can be shown technically , but add little to the slap-stick of really understanding the reason they came about

Might as well reduce it to the expulsion from the garden.

But of another language , a technical one, can elucidate it better, go ahead, for.those whose comprehension totally disclaims meta as opposed to pure physics and math.

Bring it down to a real application, perhaps with a comment on hyper technological advances being able to make nuclear delivery systems absolute and irrevocably dangerous? Or, can cyber technology over come this absolutely horrid advance in a brave new world scenario? Is there any fun in that? Or can humanity defeat the principle of.a built in self destruction, reducing human value approaching absolute nothingness?

If that happens , the static state would have never existed, so slap stick then is merely grounded in paradox

If this goes against the intent of.Your forum, or you do not understand it, then merely disregard it.promise I will not take it in one way or, another.

Sometimes I wish my friend Saint James was here, he was a long timer here, just right up there with the kind of comments you are seeking.

Meno_ wrote:Sorry to disillusion. you , but Janus and Ying Yang are metaphysical conceptions ; metaphorical functions. Indeterminancy between default and ground -state can be shown technically , but add little to the slap-stick of really understanding the reason they came about

It seems you missed the essential point that the evidence is accumulating that all of classical logic and physics are tautological and self-contradictory. Assuming 42 really is as good an explanation as any other, that makes all our words and concepts pragmatic, because they only have demonstrable meaning in specific contexts.

Among my specific intentions is to kick-start the next scientific revolution based on systems logics.

orist who spent ten years studying all the neurological evidence and running one computer simulation after another, only to conclude that if the human mind and brain had resembled anything like reality

dont know what you mean. either u are saying the human Mind is beyond science. Or that brute-force methods of creation are too inefficient to create a goldilocks universe.

it would seem to imply the anthropic principle in that either the multiverse creates infinite universes, and we only exist in percievable ones, Or that, in the case of multi-verse, cause-effect is backwards and that our existence causes itself.

in any case, i doubt u or me has any real answer to this question. Continue work on your vr thing so that we can maybe upgrade our brains.

Last edited by newegg on Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Meno_ wrote:Sorry to disillusion. you , but Janus and Ying Yang are metaphysical conceptions ; metaphorical functions. Indeterminancy between default and ground -state can be shown technically , but add little to the slap-stick of really understanding the reason they came about

It seems you missed the essential point that the evidence is accumulating that all of classical logic and physics are tautological and self-contradictory. Assuming 42 really is as good an explanation as any other, that makes all our words and concepts pragmatic, because they only have demonstrable meaning in specific contexts.

Among my specific intentions is to kick-start the next scientific revolution based on systems logics.

true i noticed this as well. For example, saying an electron has a static pull due to "Columb" forces only begs the question...Why do columb forces exert a pull? If that cannot be answered then the explanation is tautological, and unsatisfying. It is unsatisfying because it does not give us power to choose our destiny. Unless we posses the magic to truly create our own forces. Or the wisdom not to create our own forces, but to simply deeply understand the forces enough to build ourselves salvation. And living in salvation, until the day our curiosity can truly be satisfied, or that we have Safety enough that our ignorance is forever eternal, and blissful enough that is not a problem.

(Not too well read on Columb forces, so maybe there is an answer. But if the answer is along the lines of, another tautology/dead-end, then the problem remains.)

Assuming 42 is as good an answer as any other, that means we have both an unconscious consensual reality and a conscious individual reality that overlap each other, but exchange identities at times. Hence, the explanation for the researchers not getting the punch lines to their jokes, because they were looking for answers and could not occupy the lowest possible energy state of the system, because they were a part of the system and it could not go any lower and still remain humanly conceivable. We laugh, in part, to give nonsense more meaning because every context must have a significant amount of content.